Intellectual property assets, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and a variety of other assets, are among the most important assets of businesses. Recently, intellectual property assets have grown in importance relative to other assets of businesses such as plant and equipment, access to natural resources, or capital. These other assets have become increasingly fungible and commoditized due to globalization and modernization of the world economy. In contrast, due to the increasing speed of technological change in the economy, particularly technological change arising from the widespread use of computers and new telecommunications technologies including the internet, patents have especially increased in their importance to companies. By providing a patentee with an ability to preclude other parties from making, using or selling a particular technology, for a limited time, a patent can provide the patentee with a very secure and valuable competitive advantage.
While patents can be of great value, only relatively few patents are effectively exploited by the patentees (or the assignees of the patents) so that the patents actually achieve their maximum value as assets. Many patents are held by companies that do not make, use or sell products (or services) embodying the technologies claimed in the patents. Further, relatively few patents are diligently enforced against other companies or licensed in the most profitable fashion possible, to all of or even a few of the companies (or other parties) who would be interested in licensing those patents and willing to pay for such licenses. Additionally, very few companies seriously investigate the possibility of selling their patents.
There are several reasons for the failure of patent-holders to maximize the value of their patents through licensing or sale. Some patents are held by companies which for business reasons have chosen not to make, use or sell technologies covered by the patents, even though there is a market for such technologies that other companies would be interested in exploiting if they were able to license or purchase those same patents. More commonly, many patent holders fail to realize, due to bad judgment or ignorance (or simply due to the complexity and uncertainties that exist in the financial valuation of patents), the potential value of their patents. For example, many patents that in fact cover a variety of technologies in a variety of industries are held by companies, or only licensed to companies, which make, use or sell products embodying only a small subset of those technologies within only a subset of those industries. Typically, such patent-holders are not aware of all of the potential applications of their patented technologies.
Insofar as patents are of great and increasing value, and insofar as patents have historically been underexploited as assets particularly due to companies' inadequate understanding of their patents as well as other inefficiencies in the licensing or sale (or other transfer) of patents, there is a growing need for mechanisms and institutions that facilitate the licensing and sale of patents. Recently, various groups have begun to recognize this need and have begun to respond to it. In particular, several groups have begun to develop patent or intellectual property asset exchanges, which include (for example) The Patent and License Exchange, PatentCafe.com and yet2.com. The development of such exchanges has been facilitated by the development of computers and telecommunications technologies generally, and the internet specifically. These exchanges provide markets or forums in which individuals owning intellectual property assets can place those assets up for licensing or sale. Others interested in licensing or purchasing intellectual property assets can then obtain information regarding, and eventually license or purchase, the intellectual property assets that are available for transfer. Such exchanges are somewhat analogous to stock markets, which provide forums in which companies with securities may be linked with individuals who desire to purchase securities.
In addition to the groups developing such intellectual property asset exchanges, various law firms (particularly patent boutiques or general practice firms with patent or intellectual property departments) and accounting firms have begun to develop intellectual property asset management programs, which monitor clients' patents (and other intellectual property assets) and provide services designed to leverage clients' intellectual property portfolios. In providing these services, law firms and accounting firms have attempted to build upon their traditional expertises in preparing, prosecuting and defending intellectual property assets, accounting for intellectual property assets, and providing assistance in negotiating and developing contracts regarding the license or transfer of intellectual property assets. Among the services provided in intellectual property asset management programs are counseling-type services designed to help clients determine which intellectual property assets are worth developing and protecting, including auditing-type services to help clients determine what intellectual property assets they actually own.
In addition, some of the law firms and accounting firms have begun to provide (or begun to work with partners who can provide) financial or strategic management expertise rather than strictly legal or accounting expertise. By providing such expertise, the law firms and accounting firms hope to provide clients with further counseling as to how they may develop intellectual property assets that will be of value given present and future market needs. Such counseling may include advice to license, sell, or purchase patents. Indeed, one important service some of these firms are offering is assistance in “mining” the patents and other intellectual property assets the clients already own by reexamining the assets and attempting to find new markets (or markets otherwise unknown to the clients) in which those assets may be exploited. Such “mining” may include the finding of new potential licensees or purchasers of the client's intellectual property assets.
In addition to the groups developing intellectual property asset exchanges and intellectual property asset management programs, some groups are developing intellectual property brokerages. The development of such brokerages, like the intellectual property asset exchanges, has been facilitated by the emergence of the internet. Some of these brokerages, such as DaVinci-Online™ and TTG/Newfuntiers focus primarily on acting as brokerages uniting individual inventors (who have ideas or, in relatively limited cases, actual patent rights) with persons who may desire to implement, purchase or license those ideas. Other brokerages, such as The Hook focus on acting as brokerages uniting companies with potential markets. The brokerages provide services including market analysis services (to determine the potential marketability of a client's ideas or patents), marketing services (including on-line display of information regarding clients' technologies), and searching for potential development partners and purchasers/licensees. The brokerages each operate by receiving up-front fees and/or commissions for the services they provide. The brokerages less frequently take equity interests in their clients, since the taking of such equity interests is a less reliable arrangement for earning income.
Although intellectual property asset exchanges, law firms and accounting firms with intellectual property asset management programs, and intellectual property brokerages are beginning to provide valuable services, each of these types of institutions has significant limitations in facilitating the licensing or sale of patents. With respect to intellectual property asset exchanges, such institutions are only in the beginning stages of their development into mature, efficient forums for the trading (licensing, selling and purchasing) of intellectual property assets. It remains to be seen whether such forums can radically or only partially streamline the process of putting together licensors and licensees, and buyers and sellers, of intellectual property assets, by reducing information barriers and various other risks.
Further, regardless of whether intellectual property asset exchanges are successful in providing more efficient forums in which to trade intellectual property assets, the effectiveness of such exchanges will always depend in large part upon the skills of those individuals who interact with the exchanges (e.g., the parties holding “seats” on the exchanges). Such persons will need skills in effectively placing information onto, obtaining information from, and interpreting information obtained from the exchanges. Further, such persons will require decision-making skills concerning trading on the exchanges, e.g., skills in determining when it is appropriate to in fact proceed with trades on the exchanges. Although some large corporations (e.g., IBM) may have sufficient resources and incentive to develop the expertise necessary to operate in conjunction with the exchanges, without intermediaries, most small and mid-size corporations will require considerable assistance to operate in conjunction with the exchanges.
Law firms and accounting firms also are constrained to a significant extent from effectively facilitating the licensing and sale of patents. Law firms and accounting firms are restricted by laws that preclude non-lawyers from entering into partnerships with lawyers. Such laws tend to limit law firms' ability to hire persons with non-legal accounting, financial, or managerial) expertise, and to limit accounting firms' ability to hire persons with traditionally legal expertise (e.g., expertise in obtaining patent rights, enforcing those rights, and developing contracts regarding those rights), although some accounting firms have been attempting to overcome these limitations by offering lawyers very high compensation. In addition, at least law firms tend to be conservative in attempting to develop new service capabilities that are not strictly legal in nature. The organizational structure of law firms (a rigid partner-associate model) tends to preclude the hiring of persons who are not lawyers. Consequently, in developing their intellectual property asset management programs, law firms have been attempting to fit lawyers into non-legal roles or, alternatively, to form partnerships with outside, non-legal institutions. Both of these ways of developing non-legal expertise have significant inefficiencies.
As regulated, service-oriented firms, both law firms and accounting firms face additional constraints that limit their abilities to effectively facilitate the licensing and selling of patents. Neither law firms nor accounting firms are comfortable with marketing their clients' products or services, which may include licensable or saleable intellectual property assets. Nor are law firms or accounting firms generally comfortable with the prospect of taking a financial interest in their clients or clients' assets. Both types of firms are risk averse. Further, at least law firms face legal rules that preclude (or at least cloud) their ability to take an interest in their clients. Because law firms and accounting firms typically must therefore be compensated on a per-job basis or on an hourly basis (rather than in equity or by sharing in a clients' profits), these firms have only a moderate incentive to assist their clients in achieving greater profits by more effectively exploiting their patents.
Additionally, both law firms and accounting firms are somewhat, if not completely, limited in representing clients whose interests conflict. As a result, there are significant barriers to the growth of law firms and accounting firms in their efforts to facilitate the transfer of intellectual property to and from many different clients. Indeed, law firms and accounting firms are to a significant extent precluded from assisting in deal-making between parties who may be interested in exchanging patent rights simply because the firms are uncomfortable with (or incapable of) representing (or mediating between) parties on opposite sides of a negotiating table.
These limitations on the abilities of law firms and accounting firms to facilitate the licensing and sale of patents affect not only the firms' ability to assist clients in their direct dealings with other parties but also the firms' ability to represent clients on, or to offer advice in regards to, the intellectual property exchanges. Even though law firms and accounting firms may be able to develop some expertise in representing their clients on the exchanges, providing the services associated with representing clients on the exchanges will likely be inefficient for law firms and accounting firms. The services required by clients in dealing with the intellectual property exchanges will be analogous to brokerage services provided in relation to stock exchanges. However, the providing of such services will require a high degree of expertise in a combination of areas, including trading expertise, negotiation expertise, financial valuation expertise, technical expertise, and legal expertise. Persons qualified to provide such services will require skills above and beyond those of (or at least different than those of) typical lawyers (patent or otherwise), accountants or managers.
Intellectual property brokerages also are hindered by certain limitations that prevent their effective facilitation of intellectual property transfer. Although intellectual property brokerages sometimes take equity interests in their clients, generally such brokerages do not purchase, obtain licenses (including the rights to sublicense) in, or otherwise obtain intellectual property rights in the intellectual property of their clients. Rather, the intellectual property brokerages provide services to facilitate the sale, licensing or other development of their clients' intellectual property, and the brokerages are paid for their services by way of up-front fees or commissions. Consequently, intellectual property brokerages are hindered by a lack of certain incentives for employees (e.g., a lack of institutional mission) and a lack of flexibility. The employees of intellectual property brokerages do not typically obtain the individual satisfaction of “ownership” (or even a lesser possessory interest) in the intellectual property interests with which the brokerages are dealing, and the employees are not involved in any tangible “building-up of the enterprise” that could give the employees a special type of satisfaction and motivation. The brokerages and their employees must constantly adapt to the ever-changing, sometimes short-sighted demands of their clients.
Additionally, because the intellectual property brokerages lack ownership of intellectual property assets (or possession of interests in/rights to the intellectual property), the brokerages' value is determined almost exclusively by the talent of their personnel or “human capital.” As with respect to many service firms, this lack of identifiable assets can limit the brokerages' ability to raise capital (e.g., through public trading of the brokerages' stock on stock exchanges). This inability to raise capital in turn limits the brokerages' effectiveness in facilitating intellectual property transfer. As in the biotechnology industries, where identifying market needs and developing valuable, marketable products requires great expenditures sustained over long periods of time, the identification and development of opportunities for intellectual property transfer can require investments over a long period of item. Intellectual property transfer often is a complicated, risky business requiring significant patience. Because brokerages lack capital and must respond to the immediate demands of their clients, brokerages must constantly focus on developing the most obvious, easily-attainable, short-term opportunities for intellectual property transfer, and must ignore the more challenging (and often long-term) opportunities.
Given the growing importance of intellectual property assets to companies, given that the value of intellectual property assets could be significantly enhanced by increased and more efficient licensing and sale of intellectual property assets, and given the limitations of intellectual property asset exchanges, law firms, accounting firms, and intellectual property brokerages in facilitating intellectual property transfer, there exists a critical need for a system for facilitating the transfer of intellectual property such as the licensing and sale of patents. Further, because of the continuing development and increasing use of computer and telecommunications technologies generally, and the internet specifically, including the development and use of such systems by and in relation to the intellectual property asset exchanges, there exists at present a critical need for a system for facilitating intellectual property transfer that employs these modern computer and telecommunications technologies. The need is for, among other things, a system that employs these technologies for the purposes of efficiently interfacing with parties who would like to directly license, sell or purchase intellectual property assets (as well as the parties' representatives, who may include law firms, accounting firms or intellectual property brokerages), interfacing with the intellectual property asset exchanges, processing information obtained from each of these entities, and promoting the transfer of intellectual property assets among these parties.
From the above, it is apparent that it would be advantageous if there was a system in place that facilitated intellectual property transfer (where intellectual property transfer is understood broadly to encompass the transfer of any and all types of intellectual property assets, including patents, trademarks and copyrights). It would be additionally advantageous if such a system was capable of interfacing with companies or individuals who were interested in licensing or selling their intellectual property assets, and with companies or individuals who were interested in licensing (or sublicensing) or purchasing others' intellectual property assets. It would further be advantageous if such a system was capable of streamlining the processes of licensing and selling patents such that the processes (and operation of the system itself) were quick, easy to understand and implement (e.g., standardized), and inexpensive to use, for potential licensors, licensees, sellers and buyers of patents. It would additionally be advantageous if such a system was capable of addressing the needs of many different parties with respect to the transfer of many different patents, in a rapid, efficient manner. It would further be advantageous if such a system eliminated or avoided the constraints faced by law firms and accounting firms in relation to their representation of clients who wish to license, sell or purchase patents.
It would be further advantageous if such a system was capable of interfacing with the emerging computer-based, internet-oriented intellectual property asset exchanges to allow for licensing and selling of patents on those exchanges in an efficient, inexpensive and reliable manner. It would additionally be advantageous if such a system eliminated or avoided the constraints faced by law firms and accounting firms vis-à-vis the intellectual property asset exchanges, and improved (directly or indirectly) the accessibility and efficiency of the exchanges for companies or individuals. It would further be advantageous if such a system was not hindered by the constraints affecting intellectual property brokerages, including overly-demanding clients, a lack of mission for its employees, a lack of capital, or a lack of flexibility (in particular, to pursue long-term, but profitable, opportunities for the transfer of intellectual property). It would additionally be advantageous if such a system was fast-operating, easy to use, and inexpensive to use and operate, by potential licensors, licensees, sellers and buyers of patents, in relation to the intellectual property asset exchanges. It would be further advantageous if such a system was capable of facilitating a multiplicity of different types of intellectual property transfer arrangements involving a multiplicity of different types of licensors, licensees, sellers and buyers.